You have to bear in mind that this govt is a Left-wing coalition, and so their willingness to resort to things like censorship will be greater.

The center-right political opposition, the Bharatiya Janata Party, have in the past championed laws such as the Prasar Bharati Act to protect independence of the media from arbitrary government censorship, precisely because the Indian Left have a long history of playing these types of games.

Even though I don't live in India, this is good. I'm all for people saying whatever the hell they want, regardless of any governmental restrictions or intrusions.
Now, if only we could get the government off our backs here in the states...

I agree. The average citizen hsa nothing revolutionary to say, so why not let them speak. It's only a handful of people that might cause problems. Plus blogs are usually fairly harmless. The News just focuses on anything negative.

I'm all outraged at the current administration as well, but thinking about it (for not very long) I can't really think of many free speech issues. It's more just lots of surveilance. What am I forgetting?

What we are seeing here is the difference between a democratic government like India (which has things like elected officals eventually accountable to their constituents and thus amenable to influence by public pressure; and an independent judiciary with the power to check the elected officials if they violate the citizenry's fundamental rights), and a state like China.

Democracies can be imperfect; democracies like India can make mistakes, or do things (like this Blog censorship program) which are wrong. But at least in a democracy, there is some kind of mechanism in place that can be used to eventually fix the mistakes and correct the wrongs. China has no mechanisms in place to correct the wrongs of those in power. And so you can wait, but the wrongs are not going to just go away.

Yeah but in order for democracies to function properly you've got to have a population that pays attention to what's going on and who holds their elected officials accountable when then screw up. Then you get a situation like America where the upper 1% pretty much do whatever the fuck they want because the majority of the citizens don't seem to give a rats ass. Bread and circuses and all that.

It has been interesting (to say the least), observing the current Indian Government. A ragtag coalition of opposing political groups, their common underlying theme is "Socialism". Their major coalition partner is the Communist Party of India (Marxist) which has influenced important policy decisions by the govt.The Government back-pedalled on the Blogging ban because they were afraid of getting their heads slapped around by the Supreme Court. This Government is the first in recent times (past 20 years) that

If this is not bias, what is bias? Because India is labled as "democracy", everything India did has its own reason, even it is wrong. Because China is labeld as "communist", everything China did is evil, even it has its own backgound. Of course, both censoring blog and building so-called "great internet wall" are bad, but please be a little bit fair and objective. Democracy is not the only judgement, and it is just a social system as others. It has its merits and limits, so do other systems. Don't forget th

July
20, 2006
The Department of Telecom (DoT) has instructed all the
Internet Service Providers (ISPs) in the country to block only the
specified website/webpages on the parent website. The DoT, in its letter
issued to all the ISPs has mentioned that it had come to notice that in
some cases the parent website had been blocked in contravention to what
was stated in its earlier order dated 13th July 2006 whereby it
ordered the ISPs to block certain websites/webpages.
As such the DoT has now directed all
the ISPs to strictly comply with the order dated 13th July 2006
and provide unhindered access to Internet except for the websites/webpages
which have been specifically mentioned in its orders issued from time to
time.
The DoT has further sought explanation from the erring ISPs as to why action
be not taken against them for blocking unintended
websites/webpages.

The DoT, in its letter issued to all the ISPs has mentioned that it had come to notice that in some cases the parent website had been blocked in contravention to what was stated in its earlier order dated 13th July 2006 whereby it ordered the ISPs to block certain websites/webpages

Is it so difficult for ISP's to filter only some particular blogs in Blogspot & not all blogs on Blogspot ?? Isnt there a technological solution ? or Is it that they didnt want to do it?

Ah, yes. A post about censorship in India under an article about censorship in India. Clearly offtopic.

I don't usually complain about moderation, especially that of my own posts, but WTF?If you feel you must protect your county no matter what it does, why not reply and explain to me how culturally insensitive I am in thinking that censorship sucks.

If, however, the moderator was on crack or just wasted, please accept my apology and enjoy your experience.

They walk the good talk about public safety, terrorism, etc., but it's always just a ruse to get their foot in the door of censorship. Blocking a blog won't stop the terrorists behind it. Racist speech is only dangerous when it gets the mystique that comes only from being banned by hand-wringing bureaucrats who are open about fearing it.Repeat after me, censorship is always bad except in the most extreme cases like publishing a how-to FAQ on building a portable nuclear bomb or up-to-date troop movements. Wh

Did you even RTFA? The Govt. asked ISPs to block 17 blogs (not entire blog networks) and even those blogs were not "terrorist" blogs but rather sites inciting reprisals against India's muslim minority for the Bombay bomb blasts last week.

As for "censorship is always bad except....", except when you think its justified? Paging Dr. Hypocrite.

This is certainly good news for the Indians, but I wonder if this will be good for business too. Right now I would guess that China and India are pretty fierce competitors for offshored business from the West. China holds the edge right now in manufacturing, while IT related work seems to be India's forte (I reserve the right to be completely wrong about this). I don't really see manufacturing moving to India any time soon, but I think there is some pressure for more IT to go to China where the workers are increasingly cheaper than those in India as Indian wages increase due to high demand.

But I would guess that the less than free and open society in China coupled with China being looked upon, by the U.S. at least, as a dangerous competitor on the world stage, is putting a brake on IT work freely flowing into China. Seriously, China and the U.S. could be at war tomorrow if Taiwan declared independence. India can play this to their advantage by doing as much as possible to resemble the free and open society that Americans claim to love so much. India is, afterall, the world's largest democracy, so playing the freedom angle isn't too much of a stretch with the right marketing.

I'm not saying that there is any concious orchestration going on. But stories like censoring the internet don't help the image the government probably wants to project, so reversing that can only be to their advantage.

India gained its freedom from the british in 1947, when neither USA or China, were the world powers that they are today

You mean the same 1947 in which the USA was the ONLY nation in the world with a nuclear weapon, and the only major nation not to have lost a significant part of its population and industrial power to war? (Pearl Harbor didn't exactly contribute much in the way of industrial production) I'll give you China, but the US has been a bona fide world power since shortly after we joined WWII.

Might make sense if, say, Hollywood (or any content-producing industry) is outsourcing stuff to India. That is not what's happening; as my colleague from Burma will tell you, IT outsourcing doesn't quite "need" a free and open society, a closed totalitarian community of trained droids will do just fine.

In short, India's tryst with freedom (to echo Nehru's words) isn't to grab that one extra consulting project; it is, let's face it, the only way so many ethnicities can share a common space and prosper.

a) The govt. had infact NOT asked for all blogs to be banned. It was just ISPs being clueluess. Repeat after me.. the blanket ban on blogspot and typepad was in ERROR... the ISPs' mistake.. not the big bad govt's.

b) The govt. had infact asked for 20 odd blogs and sites to be blocked - these were allegedly trying to incite hatred against certain minority communities, by blaming them for the recent bomb blasts in Mumbai. It was felt that such hate campaigns may lead to a violent reprisal against these communities.

c) While banning said sites may also be an attack of freedom of speech (though I think this is similar to the ban on Nazi propoganda in Germany). it is NOT in the same league as that in China and North Korea.

d) This (and by this, I mean blocking the original 20 sites, not the whole of blogspot, etc) is ALSO different from the US govt's reaction after 9/11. There was no attempt to use temporary public anger to justify aggression, infact quite the opposite - the govt. has tried to defuse such tensions and ensure sanity prevails.

Absolutely true. Indian govt banned only 17 websites. But the ISPs blocked the websites that are not in the list. Indian newspaper Hindu has posted the copy of govt order [hinduonnet.com] that is sent to ISP for blocking the websites.

The same way that some ISPs (including NIC dial-up - which is what most civil servants and MPs use) are doing it. They route all port 80 traffic to a proxy of sorts, analyze the Host: header and the URL, and block out the offending site.Difficult, but not impossible. Since the civil servants who issued said orders knew that their own ISP was capable of blocking out particular subdomains/urls even on multihomed IPs, they assumed every ISP could do the same. The "withdrawal" came after they realized that most

> The govt. had infact NOT asked for all blogs to be banned. It was just ISPs being clueluess.

I don't know whether the ISPs were clueless, but they certainly revealed the rot in what the Indians like to call democracy.

What the government asked for is worse, it was a slap in the face for freedom of speech. There was NO due process. It was a "silent" order given to the ISPs by some anonymous bureaucrats asking for _specific URLs_ to be blocked, regardless of legal merit (look at princesskimberly.blogspot.c

Many of the good folk at the BloggersCollective have filed Right to Information requests; we should copies of the exact files in thirty days' time. Suffice it to say, though, that the IT Act, 2000, allows for just this; there is no due process when it comes to blocking websites. The PIL, presumably, exists to get this clarified in the Supreme Court.

I shouldn't have used the word "_due_ process", it's enough to ask what _process_ did they use in choosing what sites to block. The IT Act (like many other Indian laws) gives overbroad powers to unelected bureaucrats, the implied condition is that they'll be used sparingly (a model probably inspired by British law, which also does the same).What we see here is nothing less than blocking sites some random bureaucrat didn't like. To use a legal phrase, there is no bright-line definition for what cannot be ban

No, that's my point. If you look at the censorship regimes, if you will, for other media, things are much more clear-cut; movies have the Censor Board (and its subsequent process of appeal), books can't be censored per se, but can be banned for security reasons. Overall, when a movie or a book is restricted in some way, we Indians get to know. With websites, we simply don't know. Therefore, in my book, the IT Act is much more draconian than earlier laws.

Did you even read http://princesskimberly.blogspot.com/ [blogspot.com] which is an American writing about how she's "bored"? Not a mention of Muslims there! (I know/.-ers would like such blogs banned forthwith, but that's carrying a joke too far)

Even otherwise, hinduunity.org etc publicize organizations like the VHP and Bajrang Dal in India. Now, I don't like these parties (hoodlums mostly) but if they are legal in India then their beliefs oughtn't be blocked from the 'net.

In a previously highly rated post [slashdot.org] a reader claimed that democracy doesn't guarantee freedom. From a strict standpoint, he's absolutely right. But democracy makes freedom MUCH easier to attain since in general people want freedom and not opression. I think this reversal of the policy nicely illustrates that. As several others have pointed out, contrast this with a country like China where there's no democracy, and the government keeps a tight grip on its citizens. It's like the addage that money doesn't buy happiness, but the corollary is that it makes it whole lot easier.

Either people aren't reading the article or are completely oblivious to recent events.

Trains in Mumbai (Bombay) were recently bombed in what many people suspect was an act of Islamist terrorism to further the separation/Islamistization of Kashmir.

The blogs in question were inciting violence against India's muslim population in response to the train attacks. The blocking of these blogs were done to prevent the incitement of retalliatory attacks and to prevent the issue from escalating into an unmanageble situation like what is currently happening in Israel/Lebanon. I for one think this is the only legitimate use of censorship and applaud the Indian government for its foresight and action.

Many people fail to realize that India is not only the world's largest democracy and for the most part has a responsible government. Unfortunately, India too often gets lumped in with the Islamist extremests to the west (of India) or the Communist despots to the east (of India).

Are you Indian? If so, I guess you are trying to be patriotic by defending your government. I you are really patriotic, don't trust your government blindly.

The blogs in question were inciting violence against India's muslim population in response to the train attacks.

Do you know that for a fact? Why didn't government inform about thiTill now the government has not even given an explanation on why each of the sites were banned. Couldn't have said it better than this guy (read carefully why this is

India, like many European countries and unlike the US, has no absolute right to free speech; even according to the Article 14 (which defines the Fundamental Right to free speech), there are many conditions under which the right to exercise speech may be abrogated. In an ideological sense, you could say that the Indian Constitution is actually libertarian in spirit, but liberal in character; so within the parameters of Indian legal tradition, it is very much the G

Unfortunately, India too often gets lumped in with the Islamist extremests to the west (of India) or the Communist despots to the east (of India).

Who are the dorks who modded such utterances insightful???

North western border of India has Pakistan which is not "Islamist extremests" (is Germany only "neo-nazis"?).

West Bengal [wikipedia.org] which is to the east of India and the southern state of Kerala has communist parties in power. Both the states are topping in literacy, education, and other welfare related indic

Even though Govt of India ordered to restore acess to blogspot, The 18 sites [wikia.com] that Govt decided to ban is still banned. But for most of those sites & blogs I cant findout reason to block. Still ministry is silent on it. It again the duty of bloggers community to file Right to information Application to know why this ban. The news came on Indian Express [indianexpress.com] Newspaper addresses this issue in some amount. Are Bloggers are happy after removing the threat to their own blogs? If they can block a blog like http://p [blogspot.com]

I think u raised a valid point. But As you may noticed sites like hinduunity.org etc are very much hate spreading. The most interestiung thing for me is there are reports, aboutt govt banned these sites to defent Islamist terrorists.
But In the list you mensioned I cant find any single site that contains islamist messages. If terrorists need a communication They will not use blogs & websites. There are enough mechanisms to communicate for them here

Govt of India never banned all blogs. After terrorist attack in Mumbai, 22 sites were ordered to be blocked to prevent communal hatred and riots. The order was misinterpreted [hindustantimes.com] by ISPs who blocked blogspot.com (this was just a mistake).

I am against all kind of govt censoring (including this). But this ban should not be compared to one in China. The two are fundamentally different as India is a democracy and Indian Constitution provides freedom of expression. But this ban was not unconstitutional as freedom of expression does not allow one to spread opinions of hatred.

Yes, the dal issue is more important and more stupid that the ban on blogs. If the dal price goes through the roof what will all the Non Resident Indians do? Where will the vegetarians get their protein?

Hate to burst your anarchist bubble, but the reason the Indian Gov't was concerned about annoyed bloggers was because they COULD VOTE THEM OUT OF OFFICE if the problem was not fixed. Also note that India, like the USA, has rules against the gov't just sending troops in to kill everyone that annoys them. Think about it, Michael Moore might have had an atomic bomb dropped on his lard ass by now otherwise!

Not really, but then again I believe strongly in the right to say whatever you want to. So I really don't think anything bad should happen to him at all. Kind of like all the people that make satiric drawings of Pres. Bush as a chimp don't actually beleive he is a Simian instead of Homo Sapien and also aren't really trying to insult chimps either.

I seriously doubt a handful of bloggers, by themselves, mass the raw democratic clout to decide even a close vote. But then, that's not the point. Democratic politics aren't really about elections - elections are just the safety valve. The reality of politics is that the people the ultimate power not just every so often, but continually. (This is true even in a tyrannny. When a misruled people realise their strength, you get a "color revolution".) If the public en masse decide that politicians must, or must

I never thought India was perfect, but contrast with China or Korea or (insert favorite fascist hell-hole here) where the only response would have been a qucik trip to the local prison. India's gov't surely does pay some attention to the mood of the public.

You have the right to speak freely using your body, your tools and your property. No law and no politician can change that.

Actually, yes it can. A human being does not have any god-given de-facto right to own property any more than a llama does. It is the law that gives you right to own property, and the law could just as easily take it away.

The only "right" you are born with, the only "right" granted to you by nature, is the right to live, think, and die as you please. Any other "rights" you have are gra

I have always wondered why people think that God or 'Nature" will come and give them rights. An animal has the right to live until some stronger animal kills it and eats it. In a place like Somalia you have the right to whatever you are strong enough to capture and keep away from everyone else. Modern liberal western society is a "virtual" world where we all decided that everyone has certian rights and then formed various oragnizations to preserve them. Prior to 1865, of what use was the Bill of Rights to a

I also noticed that most Indian entrepreneurs ignore the business regulations, tax requirements and licensing regulations

But I'm sure they rapidly remember regulations about property ownership when their hungry neighbors try to grab what they have. Indian businessmen ignore regulations that are not in their favor when it's convenient, not because they are making some anarcho-capitalist point. Just how dumb are you?

There was no vote here to reduce government's intrusion -- there was a public outcry and thousands of individuals who were prepared to just violate the law and become criminals. This is what I like to see.

YOU ARE THE LAST PERSON I AM SAYING THIS TO. DEMOCRACY != VOTING. Democracy = the ability for the people to decide their governmental actions. Thus this was an action of democracy, not the free market. Free marketeers really have very little to gain from preventing the censorship of a myspace or blogger

The point libertarians make is that property and self ownership constitute the least possible coercion of any system. Economic and interpersonal activitiy would be limited by consent, but never by imposition.

Add more freedom, you allow imposition. Take more freedom, and that is an imposition. Libertarian anarchy sits precisely where the curve crosses the zero.

can we get electricity/water/food for all the poor people out there who don't even know what a blog is?

Wow, I have never seen a more rhetorical question from a guy who comes from India and is apparently settled in US (visit his website [tripod.com]). Somehow I feel that you are one of those millions of Indians in US who feels they care about their country and express it in soulless words. If you were all that concerned, you wouldn't be waving racing flags at Nascar races, but instead be in India and help the poor in that country get education or something goddamit.

dude, you're taking this too personally. I'm here in the U.S. to work & study. Yes, I go to Formula1 (that's not NASCAR stupid!) but that's because I can afford to do so and its a passion. At the same, through my parents back home, I make annual contributions to Indian NGOs. What do you do to help third world countries?

that's the nth time my big mouth has got me into trouble... now i'm just going to make wise ass remarks about trivial topics.
but since we're in this subject... what is the total percentage of people in India who actually read blogs? About 2% of the population have access to the Internet in India. I totally agree that "freedom of press" is important, but we don't see that even in the traditional print medium.
I'd say this story [indiatimes.com] is more worthy of/.

Hi,First, you should not look at the percentage of 1 billion but actual numbers. If 2 million people (or 20 lakhs as we call it) read the blogs, then its lot of people who are affected. Also, you seemed to miss my point. This is not just about blogs. Its a slippery slope when it comes to freedom of press. Yes, blogs are the least influential media and if there is no resistance next will be local cable channel political programs and then governemnt will move up to mainstream news and news papers.

I totally agree that "freedom of press" is important, but we don't see that even in the traditional print medium.

Numbers don't tell you anything about impact. Recent experience tells us that blogs are one of the best ways in organizing people; consider how blogs disseminated information during the 2004 tsunami, or the Mumbai blasts.

If you think this was just about getting some blogs unblocked? This is about government censorship of the Internet (and media in general). It's about freedom to speech.
Do you really think overlooking this issue would make India's other problems go away?